是類推適用抑或是適法解釋以入出國及移民法第73條第1項之適用為例

Is it an analogical application or a legal interpretation Taking the application of Article 73, Paragraph 1 of the Immigration Act as an example

在重罪之場合，如經濟犯罪，常因審判期間漫長，在不可能一直羈押的情況下，必然得為保釋。只是在保釋期間，如何防止逃亡，卻一直是刑事司法之痛。而有關防逃，還可分為事前預防與事後處罰之機制，就前者而言，即是在刑事訴訟法中，增強替代羈押的措施，但關於後者，似較受忽略。一個主要的原因，即是一旦出逃成功，所能處罰的對象，就是幫助被告逃亡者，而有關此等處罰，就以入出國及移民法為主要之依據。只是此等刑法規定，是否能符合罪刑法定之要求，卻有探討之餘地。本文即以例題方式，來討論協助受限制出境出海者出境，到底如何適用法律，方符合罪刑法定之要求。

In serious crimes, such as economic offenses, bail is often necessary due to the lengthy trials and the impossibility of indefinite detention. However, preventing escape during the bail period remains a persistent challenge in criminal justice. Escape prevention can be categorized into pre-emptive prevention and post-emptive punishment. The former involves strengthening alternatives to detention within criminal procedure law, but the latter seems to be relatively neglected. A primary reason for this is that if an escape is successful, the person who aided the defendant in fleeing can be punished, and such punishment is primarily based on immigration and emigration laws. However, whether these criminal law provisions meet the requirement of legality of crime and punishment remains a matter of debate. This article will use an example to discuss how the law should be applied to assist individuals with travel restrictions to leave the country and ensure compliance with the requirement of legality of crime and punishment.